If you were upset about the $700 billion bailout, get ready to really blow your top. Cerberus Capital Management, which owns Chrysler and a joint stake in GMAC, received a $5 billion bailout from the feds in the days leading up to the election. That's because GMAC -- the financing arm of GM -- had become a wounded duck thanks to a spate of foolish mortgage lending.

You may recall that Clark grudgingly condoned the $700 billion that aided Wall Street. So why, then, would be opposed to the $5 billion bailout for Cerberus? Simple -- their collapse would not present the same kind of "systemic risk."

The only reason they got money is because of who they are; they count former Vice President Dan Quayle among their ranks.

Cerberus next wants to engineer a merger of Chrysler and GM, which would require more taxpayer money. It's being marketed as a way to stop imminent job losses. No way, says Clark. If we allow them to merge with our money, the real purpose will be to help the fat cats at Cerberus. Workers will lose their jobs anyway; we're way oversupplied in the car market and have too many factories as well.

If you're an autoworker who's now mad at Clark, realize that he truly doesn't believe your jobs would be safe with a bailout. The bailout would be solely to save the wealthy influentials. Of course, Clark would love to have a Cerberus rep come on air and dispute what he's saying.

One last thought: What kind of example do we set for the rest of the world when we start bailing out losers with the money from the winners? That's crony capitalism, that's a Third World kind of capitalism.

Yes, it may seem like Clark has a split personality. He supported the financial bailout as a necessary evil -- after all, capitalism requires capital to function -- but he's opposed to the Cerberus bailout. But it's a whole different game when you're being asked to take care of an industrial organization that didn't manage itself well.